Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (109185)	7/30/2011 12:40:08 AM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224759

Its not that different, but the 14th amendment issue is simpler, you have one claim from one clause of one amendment, rather than "its a tax" (even though it isn't, and if it was it wouldn't be a constitutionally permitted tax", combined with "necessary and proper" and "interstate commerce". Also its different in that while the individual mandate is unprecedented, no court decision supports something directly like it, you do have court decisions that already extend some of the supposed justifications well beyond the actual wording of the constitution. For example you have Wikard that allowed power of interestate commerce to cover intrastate non-commercial activity since it "affects interstate commerce". Even in Wikard they where not mandating making a purchase, but the "commerce clause" as the "federal government can do almost whatever it wants clause" has a lot more judicial history than the extension of "The validity of the public debt of the United States... shall not be questioned", in to "the president can spend whatever he wants even if there is a law against him doing so" clause. Also because Obamacare was at least passed in to law. Here you have a case where theoretically (I don't think it will actually happen) the president is trying to flout the law.